Whistleblower drops 'largest ever' ICE leak to unmask agents

superkuh 128 days ago | |

Pretty simple. These are federal government employees and county sherrifs. People in public positions. It's whistleblowing. This isn't any information about the people except in the context of their public employement status. Very clear cut.

If it was their home phone numbers and addresses it might be slightly less clear. But it isn't. Take a look yourself before asking an obvious question next time.

Havoc 128 days ago | |

I believe the line lies somewhere around masked men harming innocent civilians

goatlover 127 days ago | |

No other LE agency needs masks and refuses to show badges and warrants when asked. So fuck ice and their privacy concerns. They deserved to be doxxed.

mktk1001 127 days ago | |

You can find all the professors employed by a public university and their salary. How is ice any different when it comes to accountability for public funds?

jjav 127 days ago | |

Very simple: when the government is acting illegally (violating the constitution, laws, and court orders), anything you can do to expose them is whistleblowing.

doxxing OTOH is when you try to get an innocent person to be attacked by law enforcement on some fabricated reason.

zetanor 128 days ago | |

It's whistleblowing if I agree, doxing if I disagree, of course.

BadBadJellyBean 128 days ago | |

It's a blurry line that has to do with defending and attacking and is very dependent on personal experience and moral ideas.

estimator7292 128 days ago | |

When the subject of such is using their power and position to hurt people vs when it's a private citizen minding their own business.

Don't apologize for actual, literal Nazis murdering civilians in broad daylight.

nickff 128 days ago | | |

I am not a supporter of the broad powers given to Federal agents, and it seems likely to me that ICE is overstepping (what I see as) the absurd scope they've been granted by the legislature and judiciary. That said, they don't seem to be "actual, literal Nazis", and I have not seen them "murdering civilians in broad daylight", though ICE do seem to be using the very broad definition of personal protection which has become commonplace (for most police forces).

CamperBob2 128 days ago | | |

That said, they don't seem to be "actual, literal Nazis"

Agreed. The actual, literal Nazis showed their faces. These are just plain hired thugs.

For those who insist on Nazi analogies, ICE is SA, not the Gestapo. Another apt comparison might be to Sinclair Lewis's 'Minute Men' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here).

captainvaqina 128 days ago | |

If the fascists aren't following laws, why should anyone else?

0xy 128 days ago | | |

Look up Brosseau v. Haugen case law. There's extensive precedent for self defense for federal agents when people drive their car recklessly near them.

Note that in Brosseau v. Haugen, the court ruled explicitly that even a car driving AWAY from an agent can be considered an imminent deadly threat, and that firing multiple times can be justified.

In fact, that case was even murkier because the target was shot in the back (versus getting shot through the windscreen into the chest), and more bullets were discharged, and the car was further away!

subscribed 128 days ago | | |

Interesting way to pronounce "intentionally shot twice in the head through the side window" as "through the windscreen into the chest". Or maybe you just randomly forgot.

Jonathan Ross, who killed an unarmed observer trying to drive away from him, has allegedly completed advanced firearms training and maintained expert marksman qualifications according to DHS Assistant Secretary McLaughlin.

He shot to kill.

And then him and his pals barred a doctor from trying to help the victim.

There's so many videos from all angles it's really undisputable ("alternative facts" narrative non-withstanding).

0xy 127 days ago | | |

Are you claiming he did not shoot her in the chest through the windscreen? Patently ridiculous claim, there's clear evidence showing that this was the case. Unambiguously, the first shot was fired through the windscreen. Later, in a medical release, we learned that 3 bullets hit her. Meaning, the first shot through the windscreen hit her in the chest. Pretty blatantly obvious.

>him and his pals barred a doctor from trying to help the victim

Do you think police should allow a random guy claiming to be a doctor into an active crime scene to tamper with evidence? Or wait for an actual paramedic to show up? Not that it means absolutely anything at all, because given she was shot three times, twice in the chest, she was absolutely dead and there was no saving her, especially not by a random physician.

>There's so many videos from all angles it's really undisputable

You'll dispute the fact she hit him, though. Despite the evidence.

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/experts-analyze-new-v...

"Johnson said his biggest takeaway from the video was a crunching sound he heard immediately before the gunshots, which he believes is the sound of the SUV hitting the ICE agent."

"That data point for me shows that there was contact made with the agent, who is now in reasonable fear, who could clearly articulate being hit with an SUV as reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. And then the shots were fired," said Johnson.

reanimus 128 days ago | | |

The ruling itself even says that every case has to be taken in context, and that particular one was a known felon who has been accused of a crime fleeing in a vehicle. As a matter of fact, if you look at the decision [1] you won't find the word "defense" once, only "fleeing".

1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1261.ZPC.html

goatlover 127 days ago | | |

Terrible ruling then and polls show majority of Americans agree shooting Renee Good was not justifiable, nor are the current ICE tactics of dragging people fron their cars, breaking down their doors. And throwing pepper spray under the cars of families trying to leave.